Ofcom Discussion

(10-11-2013 21:33 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 13:47 )RCTV Wrote:  I think ofcom vary on what the government are at the time. The number of adult channels has moved on sky, giving them less space for less channels, no surprise considering government.

I don't think whoever in government has much to do with it. Ofcom reflect what is perceived to be the public mood of the time.

Sadly we're living in a time where people are desperate to be offended. So all of a sudden you get supermarkets demanding that lads mags are put into covers. If you go to football, chants that nobody would have batted an eyelid at even 5 years ago are now meant to be offensive. The campaign to get rid of Page 3 seems to have picked up greater momentum.

The loudest voices being heard at the moment all seem to be preaching greater censorship. There's a twitter page set up for "no more page 3" but you don't see an equivalent set up for keeping it. People with the strongest opinions will always be more proactive than people who disagree with them but don't see it as the be all and end all of their lives.

When you have things like lads mags and page 3 under threat because of the way they apparently objectify women then you have no chance at all of Ofcom suddenly relaxing it's iron grip.

it is government approved, and if it goes against what government wants it can go. The current cabinet have a lot of involvement in it, having done some recent work with another area of ofcom (nothing to do with babe channels before anyone asks).

The government are great at reacting as well, and you'll see that go down to ofcom. people moan, government act, ofcom follow.

^ More delusions. When are you going to give up on this 'I'm involved with Ofcom' and 'I'm a TV professional' nonsense? Having seen your equally bizarre posts on another forum I know what you really do.

Awww because I go against what you say you decided to personally attack me. GROW UP DAVE seriously. I can have more than one job Dave, that is possible, and if it's site I'm thinking of, why would I put that I've done work for ofcom on there, and why would I put my job on here that I put on there ... I wouldn't as it's not relevant.

Quote:OK, I forgot.

The big 5 broadcasters are almost never found guilty of anything, despite a larger audience that all other channels combined and higher audience expectations. Ofcom even have a special "resolved" category that they only use for those channels, when they cant find them not guilty.

Ive noticed the non answer ,non fully explained fine amount , what happened then "RESOLVED" comment after ive read through the whole process on Broadcast Bulletin..

Yes this special term means what? Ofcom shook hands with ITV and they then kissed and made up resolved? ITV give Ofcom a backhander resolved? It was Friday afternoon and weekend time so they said "stuff it lets just call it resolved and enjoy the weekend".

Resolved to me means Ofcom did bugger all,thats exactly what it says to me yet the babes get MASSIVE fines...#Double Standards again.

Officially it means the broadcaster has been found guilty of breaking the rules, they probably admitted it, but have given assurances and Ofcom have accepted that it was a genuine mistake and wont happen again. A bit like getting a caution for a dropping litter or turning up a one way street.

Strange how often these one off mistakes happen.

(02-11-2013 13:47 )RCTV Wrote:  it is government approved, and if it goes against what government wants it can go. The current cabinet have a lot of involvement in it, having done some recent work with another area of ofcom (nothing to do with babe channels before anyone asks).

The government are great at reacting as well, and you'll see that go down to ofcom. people moan, government act, ofcom follow.

The whole point is that what a government wants is shaped by public opinion. You could put any of the 3 main political parties into power tomorrow and Ofcom's emphasis will not change.

As can be seen from stuff like this today with the Liberal party leader bemoaning the "sexualisation of the culture."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

It's also interesting that they always link teenage sexual attitudes to pornography. I'd say video games have a far greater influence on a teenager's way of thinking. The majority of teenagers in this country seem to think they're straight outta Compton for a start and that's not coming from pornography.

(17-11-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote:  Officially it means the broadcaster has been found guilty of breaking the rules, they probably admitted it, but have given assurances and Ofcom have accepted that it was a genuine mistake and wont happen again. A bit like getting a caution for a dropping litter or turning up a one way street.

Strange how often these one off mistakes happen.

That's exactly what my reply was going to be if anyone replied to me;

""Strange how often these one off mistakes happen. ""

(17-11-2013 17:06 )MARCCE Wrote:  The whole point is that what a government wants is shaped by public opinion. You could put any of the 3 main political parties into power tomorrow and Ofcom's emphasis will not change.

As can be seen from stuff like this today with the Liberal party leader bemoaning the "sexualisation of the culture."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

It's also interesting that they always link teenage sexual attitudes to pornography. I'd say video games have a far greater influence on a teenager's way of thinking. The majority of teenagers in this country seem to think they're straight outta Compton for a start and that's not coming from pornography.

Ofcom's views would change, not much, but there would be slight change, there should be a bigger one, but the 3 main parties are too similar now.

It's easy to blame something that you don't like, and don't look at the bigger picture, it's actually often the attitudes of the parents and their lack of parenting at times, that is often the cause for it, rather than the porn. If they actually followed the law and where restricted from watching porn by their parents then there would be less problems, the porn may have an affect, but it's the parents the are causing it.

Ofcoms latest Bulletin is out.

A religious travel show contained blatant product placement and was little more than an extended advert for a travel firm - again. The writeup reads like a repeat of a similar finding a few months ago.

Another channel broadcast the late night version of a comedy show during the afternoon drew two viewer complaints. The broadcaster mistakenly denied that the show had been broadcast at the time specified. There was some kind of compliance mixup and recordings could not be supplied.

A finding about another broadcast was pulled from the Bulletin today - the day it was published - due to receipt of further information. Watch this space.

6 broadcasters, 5 TV and 1 radio, have failed to pay Ofcom fees despite repeated requests, and are "being considered" for the imposition of a statutory sanction, including licence revocation. Being considered. Yeah, right. In Ofcom speak that means it has been decided there will be a sanction, only the severity has to be decided and formalised.

15 broadcasters were late paying their fees but eventually did so and have been let off.

As usual a large number of complaints were dismissed after quick assessment. One was a complaint against a trailer for Devious Maids, a cutesy lighthearted show on women friendly channel TLC. The show is broadcast after the watershed, though there is no telling when the trailer went out. When will these people get a life? Drifters on E4 also received a complaint for sexual material. No idea what the show is about. Loose Women received a complaint that it was Materially Misleading. (Not women? Not loose enough? Not entertaining?) Some twat complained about warnings/offence on OCD Ward - what did they expect? Tea and scones?

A complaint about offensive language on Studio 66 (28/9/2013) was rejected as was another about scheduling on Studio 66 Days (19/10/2013) (scheduling=would have been ok later. Not played the children card this time).

There was a complaint about sexual orientation discrimination/offence against the Jonathan Ross Show, presumably about the tired old ambiguous gay jokes. Move on Wossy, get a new joke.

There were complaints about 16 separate X Factor and Results shows/categories, including Product Placement. Surely not. Fortunately for them all were rejected. Its hard to say how many people complained due to scope for double counting, but there were at least 72, far more than any other show or series. Combined.

There were 4 entries against This Morning on 3 dates, making it the 3rd most complained about series, apart from that hotbed of dodgy content - Sky News - with 8 separate entries. Oh, and Coronation Street with 5 entries.

No doubt Ofcom will clamp down due to the widespread outrage.

I would say that if tonight's performances and directing are any clue, all the channels have definitely had some form of 'clean up your act or else..' correspondence from Ofcom.

S66 and RL - and let's face it they're pretty much the only ones who have been taking any risks just recently - are being noticeably cautious tonight.

I'd like to think both channels just happen to have a couple of gutless producers in tonight, but I suspect I'm wrong.